On today’s episode of the 5 Things podcast: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has issued a new potential date for a looming default and former Trump employees removed boxes of papers a day before federal officials went to his home to collect documents. Calling 911 can be fatal and USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze breaks down a major ruling involving the EPA. Finally, Katherine Legge speaks with USA TODAY ahead of the Indy 500 about being the only female driver.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning, I’m Taylor Wilson. And this is 5 Things you need to know, Saturday the 27th of May 2023. Today, an extension on the debt ceiling. Plus how Trump employees removed boxes of documents. And we hear from a racing pioneer.
The US has an extra few days to avoid defaulting on its debt. Treasury secretary Janet Yellen, gave an updated timeline yesterday for when the government could run out of money. Pushing the date four days from June 1st, to June 5th. That’s if Congress doesn’t raise or suspend the debt ceiling. President Joe Biden and House Republicans are nearing a deal to raise the debt ceiling through 2024, and to fulfill some Republican demands for spending cuts. But there are still disagreements over extended work requirements for welfare programs, and expedited permitting for oil and gas projects. And it’s still not clear whether a deal will have the votes in Congress to pass, even with the backing of Biden and McCarthy.
To a former president, Donald Trump’s employees removed boxes of papers one day before federal officials went to his Mar-a-Lago home to collect classified documents according to multiple news reports. The New York Times reported that a maintenance worker saw Trump’s valet moving boxes into a storage room. And the worker ended up helping to move some of the boxes without knowing what was inside. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Trump and aids had a dress rehearsal for moving sensitive documents before his office received a subpoena last May. The reports come as Trump’s lawyers seek a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland, about the Justice Department’s investigation of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. That’s often a sign that an indictment is coming soon.
They called 911 for help. Police arrived, and they ended up shot or dead. That includes a Mississippi police officer, who shot an 11-year old who called 911 to report a domestic disturbance. And a Georgia woman who died after calling 911 for mental health help, and falling out of a moving police car while handcuffed. Those cases and more have renewed questions about who should respond to emergency calls. And what needs to change to prevent police for help from turning deadly.
Policing fatality data is notoriously poor. But a Washington Post database of all fatal police shootings, not just people who called 911 suggests police have fatally shot more than 8,500 people since 2015. And the highest number of people on record last year. Jorge Camacho, policy director at the Justice Collaboratory, a research center at Yale Law School said that one issue is information relayed to officers responding to 911 calls can often be vague and inaccurate. And that officers are trained to be hypervigilant about their own safety. All practices that can lead to deadly mistakes. He also said many officers are just not equipped to respond to mental health emergencies. You can read the full story with a link in today’s show notes.
The Supreme Court this week cited with a couple who have been battling the Environmental Protection Agency for more than a decade, over a plan to develop a property in Idaho. I spoke with USA Today Supreme Court correspondent John Fritze for more.
John, thanks for hopping back on the show.
John Fritze:
Thank you.
Taylor Wilson:
The High Court issued a ruling this week that has wide implications for the EPA’s ability to protect wetlands. What’s the case here, John? And what did the court decide?
John Fritze:
Well, why don’t we start with the people involved for one minute? And I think it’s an interesting story. So the second family bought a house, a lot. A piece of property in a residential subdivision back in 2004. And they went to build a house on it in 2007. This property is near Priest Lake, in the Panhandle of Idaho. And just as they got started on construction, they got a knock on the door, so to speak, from the EPA saying look, you can’t develop this property. Or you can’t develop it yet, because the wetlands on this property are subject to our regulation in the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act of course, is a pretty seminal and important piece of environmental legislation from the 1970s. Gives the EPA power to stop and control pollution in what it called the waters of the United States.
But there’s not a lot of definition about what that means exactly. And different administrations have battled over it for some time. And what we’re talking about in the case of the Sacketts, are wetlands. And wetlands that are not lakes, or rivers, or navigable waters. But wetlands that may feed into those larger bodies of water. So what the court did here actually unanimously was side with the Sacketts. All nine justices said, look. What happened to the Sacketts isn’t right. And their land is not subject to EPA regulation. But where they split was trying to answer this question of what the waters of the United States means. And that was a five/four split. With five conservative justices setting a very narrow standard for the kinds of wetlands and small streams and so forth, that the EPA has the power to regulate. And you had four justices that thought that went too far.
Taylor Wilson:
And John, stepping back a little bit more broadly here, you wrote that justices have sided with a number of individual plaintiffs and businesses against the government recently. Is this a trend that we should expect to continue?
John Fritze:
Maybe. I mean, I think this is a court that’s obviously conservative. Six/three conservative. And I think there are a number of members of the court that are skeptical of government power. And certainly, they have been limiting the government’s power in a number of areas. Particularly, aimed at the Biden administration. Some of the regulations that this president has attempted on say, student loans or covid vaccines. Eviction moratorium, and so forth. And so I think the court is heading in that direction.
Taylor Wilson:
And while you’re here John, some of the court’s biggest cases are often decided in June. What are you keeping an eye on, as the court wraps up its term next month?
John Fritze:
So I think student loans is a really big one. We have a number of polls showing that Americans are super clued into that case. You’re talking about $400 billion in student loan debt that President Biden has tried to forgive. Big campaign promise. The court seems to be very skeptical of that.
Affirmative action in college admissions is another really big case that does involve the constitution. But lately there’s always a good voting rights case, and this year is no exception. There’s a fascinating case out in Alabama, looking at their redistricting. And could answer some real questions about how far states have to go to protect the rights of minority voters under the Voting Rights Act. Court has been chipping away at the power of the Voting Rights Act for some time.
Look, there’s a bunch of good stuff going on. Well, interesting stuff anyway. And this is like the Super Bowl period for the Supreme Court. End of May, middle of June. So it’s going to get really interesting over the next few weeks.
Taylor Wilson:
USA Today Supreme Court correspondent, John Fritze. We’ll be following along with your coverage. Thanks so much.
John Fritze:
Thank you.
Taylor Wilson:
As John outlined, the court’s opinion adopts a new, more narrow standard limiting how much water the EPA may regulate. A win for developers, and a loss for environmentalists.
President Joe Biden said the decision would take the country backwards, and some Congressional Republicans praise the ruling. The 107th running of the Indianapolis 500 is tomorrow. And when Katherine Legge gets behind the wheel for the car race, she’ll be the only female driver. She spoke with USA Today sports senior producer Larry Berger about the pressure that comes with that. The adrenaline of race day, and more.
Larry Berger:
Heading into the biggest race on the racing calendar. What are your emotions right now?
Katherine Legge:
I think anything to do with the Indy creates every single emotion that you can imagine. You’re sitting there for qualifying even, and you’re in line. And you think you’ve got everything under control. And then you get more nervous as you get nearer to the end of the line. And you’re super happy because you’re there, and you’ve got this opportunity. Then you get nervous. And then you’re impatient.
And so you go through the whole range of emotions. I mean, obviously the one that stands out the most is that you’re happy to be there. But there’s not one emotion. It’s just… It’s a roller coaster, and it’s exhausting. But it’s the most awesome feeling in the world.
Larry Berger:
Now, you’ve been a participant in two Indy 500s before. Does that anxiety, does that nervousness end when the race begins? When does that subside?
Katherine Legge:
I think it dissipates over the course of the beginning of the race. And then it heightens towards the end when you realize that okay, it’s go time now. Because everybody’s being nice to each other, and being very conservative towards the beginning. Because, it’s 500 miles. It’s 200 laps.
So you want to get cleanly through the first couple of pit stops. And then find your place, and make your way through the field. And so I think, yes. You settle in. But then towards the end it’s like, okay. It’s go time now. So it ramps back up again.
Larry Berger:
During the past Indy 500s that you’ve raced in, what do you see? What do you smell? What do you hear as a driver in the middle of a race? Is it just a big blur, or do you make anything out?
Katherine Legge:
No. Nothing. It’s bizarre because I’m going into this Indy 500 with the mindset that, okay. I am older. I’m more able to take things in. So I want to enjoy the moment when you’re standing on the grid, and they have the flyover. And the driver’s, start your engines. And all the really cool stuff. And the crowd goes crazy. And I thought, okay. I’ll be able to cope with that this year. But then in qualifying, I thought I’d be able to cope with that too. And it was still nerve-wracking. So I think maybe I won’t. I think maybe I’ll still be blinkers on.
Larry Berger:
There’ve only been nine women to compete in the Indy 500. Do you feel added pressure as a woman, as a female in this race?
Katherine Legge:
Yes. I think I do. I wish that there were nine women in the race, instead of there just being nine having competed over the last 107 years. But I would like to think that within the racing community, I’m just seen as another driver. And not the girl driver. But I do know that it comes with a lot of responsibility. I’ve had numerous people come up to me this past week and say, you’re racing for all women out there. And so, that is a lot of pressure.
And I think if you do something good, you get added scrutiny. If you do something bad, you get added scrutiny. It is added pressure. I try and do the best that I can, and not leave anything on the table. And I try and do it as responsibly as I can. I would like to think that nine year old Katherine would think that I was doing a good job, and would look up to me. And I’d try and think of it from the other way around as well like, do I make my dad proud? Are you doing the right things? So I’m out there doing my best.
Larry Berger:
Do you see thanks to your appearance here, that there’s more to come? More behind you?
Katherine Legge:
I think so. I think we’ve got to support the ones that are coming up through. I think… Hopefully times are changing. There’s definitely more women watching racing now. I noticed that in the 10 years since I’ve been doing the 500, there are way more women fans. For the first time in history, there’s a cosmetic company partnering with me. And there’s not been any cosmetic companies on the cars before. So I think that’s a step forward, because they’re recognizing that they can reach women at something that’s traditionally been so male dominated. And also reach the men to say hey, times are changing.
Larry Berger:
Katherine, thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you.
Taylor Wilson:
Thanks for listening to 5 Things. If you like the show, please subscribe and leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And if you have any comments, you can reach us at podcasts@usatoday.com. The Sunday Edition is tomorrow, and I’m back Monday with more of 5 Things from USA Today.